Agenda item

The presenting officer outlined the details of the case for the Application for the demolition of existing car garage and construction of part 3 and 4 storey building comprising 17 new dwellings and commercial space (Use Class B1) at ground floor and basement level with associated car parking, cycle parking, recycling and refuse facilities at 152A Lee High Road, SE13.

The presenting officer highlights that the application site is not within a conservation area. The presenting officer highlighted that 5 objections and an objection was received from the Lee Forum which are detailed in paragraphs 5.3 – 5.8.

The presenting officer detailed that the scheme would not provide any affordable units on site but  a £60,000 contribution for off-site affordable housing is proposed and that the scheme would be subject to a viability review mechanism. The presenting officer also detailed that the separation distances are adequate, the proposal is not considered to have an unacceptable impact on daylight and sunlight and that the proposal is not considered to increase parking demand.

Councillor Curran asked for clarification on the overlooking and loss of light objection. The presenting officer highlighted that proposal would result in step change in urban form but as separation distance is adequate and due to the layout overlooking is considered to be minimised. Councillor Curran asked for further clarification on whether the proposal would overhang the river and the proposed materials. The presenting officer confirmed that the proposal does not overhang the river and that materials would be secured via a condition.

Councillor Paschoud (Chair) asked how the affordable housing contribution works as £60,000 does not equate to one unit. The presenting officer highlighted that the contribution will go Council’s funds for the delivery of housing.

Councillor Sorba asked whether Committee Members have the power for Section 106 contributions to be renegotiated. Kheng Chau- Legal Services stated that the application needs to be determined on the current offer.

The committee received verbal representation from David Stengel and Alex Wythe – bptw Partnership on behalf of the applicant. David Stengel outlined that 17 residential units and commercial units are proposed. It is outlined that 31 jobs would be provide in commercial units and that the residential units exceed the minimum space standards. David Stengel also highlights the other proposed contributions which include a contribution to a CPZ review.

Councillor Curran suggests that the balustrades on the terraces could be opaque. Alex Wythe states that all windows on the rear would be obscure glazed and that a screening can be added if considered necessary but highlights that terraces are 35m from the rear elevations of neighbouring properties.

Councillor Curran asks for clarification about the river ledge as to whether it’s an ecological improvement. David Stengel states that proposed ‘shelf’ would include ecological improvements.

Councillor Ingleby asks whether a contribution is being made to the Cycle Super Highway. Davide Stengel confirms that a contribution would be made.

The presenting officer highlights that proposed condition 28 is in regards to ecological enhancements.

The committee received verbal representations from Judith Humprey and David Collis in objection of the application. Judith Humprey raised concern in regards to sunlight and change in light levels, the validity of the submitted data as 16 windows were originally omitted from the report and as only winter data has been provided. David Collis also highlighted that it is difficult to have confidence in the data.

Felicity Tait – Planning Officer highlighted that originally some windows were not included in the report and this was highlighted to the applicant and this was addressed. Judith Humprey raised concern that not all of the data is available. Kheng Chau – Legal Services advised members that if they are not confident with the data, the application can be deferred. Councillor Paschoud (Chair) asked if there is sufficient missing data as to defer the application, Kheng Chau –Legal Services advised it would be due to a lack of confidence in the data. David Stengel – bptw Partnership highlighted that all of the required data is in the submitted report and that no new data can be produced that is not already included in the report.

Councillor Ingleby asked for clarification as to which paragraph in the report discussed the missing windows, Felicity Tait – Planning Officer confirmed that this is discussed in paragraph 12.8 of the report.

Councillor Maslin moved a motion to accept the officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Ingleby.

Members voted as follows:

FOR: Councillors Maslin, Ingleby, Bernards, Curran and Paschoud (Chair).

AGAINST: Councillor Sorba

RESOLVED: That application DC/177/099662 be approved.